ZeniMax Acquires Rage from Electronic Arts
- Thread starter Andy Chalk
- Start date
well i liked morrowind and oblivion, and i absolutely loved fallout 3, but im really interested in the "Especially after the last time they tried to publish a game and they absolutely raped it." part, are they to blame for rogue warrior? if so do you have a source, i have allot of anger and apparently ive been pointing it in the wrong direction.TOGSolid said:
Well, if they say the development of the game won't change, all that's going to change is how the game is marketed. I'm not sure if EA and ZeniMax have differences in how they market games, but I don't really care. I'll have a look at the reviews that Rage gets when it's released, and make my decision over whether to buy it or not based on that.
Does it really matter who develops a game, as long as it gets developed? I mean, sure it's a loss for EA, but I doubt anyone's going to jumping out of any windows over it. EA's a big company, they'll survive.
Does it really matter who develops a game, as long as it gets developed? I mean, sure it's a loss for EA, but I doubt anyone's going to jumping out of any windows over it. EA's a big company, they'll survive.
Huh. Don't care one way or another about Bethesda, but I didn't know the game was being made for the PS3.
Though the Mac is even more surprising.
Though the Mac is even more surprising.
Now they are both angry.
Um. I suppose that's good. EA has a reputation for dickery, doesn't it?
Um. I suppose that's good. EA has a reputation for dickery, doesn't it?
Published =/= Developed.Gfan_00 said:
Basically, Bethesda is just going to copy the disc a couple million times, they aren't going to actually develop anything. As for the new poster's sentiments on being surprised or not: I'd say no. ZeniMax owns iD now, so they want to make sure that their games stay "in house". By taking EA's name off of Rage, any positive publicity is going to now stay within ZeniMax-owned companies.
this is just business at work.
Id was an independant company when Rage was started, and they were getting EA to publish their game for them.
Then Zeni bought Id, but didn't have the rights to the game they're currently working on until now.
Nothing really to see here people.
thanks for the news though.. not really discussion worthy, but news is always good
Id was an independant company when Rage was started, and they were getting EA to publish their game for them.
Then Zeni bought Id, but didn't have the rights to the game they're currently working on until now.
Nothing really to see here people.
thanks for the news though.. not really discussion worthy, but news is always good
I don't normally do this, but,zombie711 said:
SO
MUCH
FAIL.
[sub]Sorry.[/sub]
OK, two main things, first of all don't just disregard Fallout, Fallout 2 and Fallout: Tactics.
Second, "A game is set in the post-apocalypse! IT MUST BE A RIPOFF OF FALLOUT!" is a little silly.
Keep in ming all (potential) differences in gameplay, story, themes and style.
Also, something only qualifies as a ripoff if it is specifically designed to mimic another successful game and ride on its success.
Case in point, Two Worlds. It was made to be like Oblivion.
Rage is not this. Rage is respectable.
Rage is id.
Also, I think there is a significant difference in themes, i.e. Fallout being more about the close-up relationships and lower-level result of emergence and apocalypse, whilst Rage is more about a world without government or defining leading force.
I would also like to apologize for my attack at the top but I AIN'T GOIN' BACK TO EDIT IT!
I don't know what to think.
EA is pretty much the embodiment of evil, so I can't cheer for those guys.
But Bethesda is pretty much the embodiment of making games that sound good on paper but end up being shitty in the end.
I mean really, why would I want to go into V.A.T.S every time I want to shoot something in Fallout 3? (Okay, it does look awesome the first hundred or so times) Well, because it's impossible to shoot anything without it, because Bethesda most likely didn't feel like bothering to implement a way to actually hit stuff while aiming on your own.
And let us not forget the stiff-backed people talking to us while never looking away-conversations that plague Bethesda games. And FACIAL ANIMATION! Helloooo!
Urgh.
EA is pretty much the embodiment of evil, so I can't cheer for those guys.
But Bethesda is pretty much the embodiment of making games that sound good on paper but end up being shitty in the end.
I mean really, why would I want to go into V.A.T.S every time I want to shoot something in Fallout 3? (Okay, it does look awesome the first hundred or so times) Well, because it's impossible to shoot anything without it, because Bethesda most likely didn't feel like bothering to implement a way to actually hit stuff while aiming on your own.
And let us not forget the stiff-backed people talking to us while never looking away-conversations that plague Bethesda games. And FACIAL ANIMATION! Helloooo!
Urgh.
Exactly! Whats wrong with you people?!Tiamat666 said:
Also so many persons seems to hate bethesda but still they spend so much time playing their games? You can't really hate some thing you spend 100h+ on? Why do you play their games so much if you hate them?
What the hell? An AAA title developed for Mac and not a port? That's news.[footnote]Yes, I know Blizzard makes for Mac too.[/footnote]Andy Chalk said:
